Talk:Fireflies (Owl City song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fireflies (Owl City song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fireflies (Owl City song) was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 4, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lyrics?

Where can I get lyrics for this song? Danny Boy 420 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google, not that it's relevant to the improvement of the article. 70.149.50.225 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently?

In the charts section... Seems inappropriate to say "currently" since there is no mention of when that part was added to the artile... 131.151.90.217 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

completely different note but i think some thing should be added about what the songs about. a lot of people say its a pointless song, but its not. its about how adam can shed his "grown up" dead-end image and completely immerse himself into the world of the imagination. this song chokes me up. my fave song because of what it means - you should clear up the confusion and show the beauty of this song. *dream on*dance on* 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)

Also about the charts section... it says that in Portugal it peaked at nº7, which it was probably right at the time but now it is proven that it became nº1 according to the site where you can check a songs performance on the charts (http://acharts.us/song/49016). cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipe Portu (talk • contribs) 23:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesizer?

It's not a huge deal, but as a synth player I'm a tad non-plussed to see a 70's era dual manual home organ (and a very basic one at that) described as a synthesizer. Sure todays organs are basically digital synths with many presets, but this is just inaccurate. Of course, it has to be said that the instrument in the video is not featured in the song, but is purely there for visual artistic reasons. sugarfish (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was bothered by that too when I read the post. From the style of the light-up note letters, I know that's a Lowrey, and it's got the 3.5 octave split spinet manuals. So I've updated the article. Tom S. (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Service

I'm pretty sure this guy ripped The Postal Service off and is being sued for it. So... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.188.28 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While their styles are similar (and I would tend to agree that he tried to capitalize on TPS' success), it has been mentioned in the main Owl City article, in a more encyclopaedic context. Also, there hasn't been a lawsuit. Nick Heer 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How does the phrase Postal Service not appear fucking once in this article? —Wiki Wikardo 22:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one has found a reliable source associating the two subjects. Find one, post it here and we can discuss if it needs to be added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recording Date

The 2nd sentence of this article says the inspiration for this song came while camping in 2008. But the box on the right hand side says it was recorded either 2007 or 2008. That would be remarkable if he managed to record something in 2007 that was inspired by an event in 2008. A true time-traveller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dd4005 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I mean, I know nothing about this particular scenario, but it's possible he could have, for example, come up with the actual music in 2007, and had been inspired to write the lyrics in 2008. Song aren't always put together all at once... Sergecross73 (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the new Weird Al polka!!

I seen him live a few days ago and he played a polka with this in it, theres videos on youtube of this called "Weird Al Polka Face" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.36.105 (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

As there are no other articles for songs called "Fireflies" I think this should be moved back to Fireflies (song). If another song with the same title gets an article, then move it back to Fireflies (Owl City song). Until then, the hatnote takes care of the rest. Anemone Projectors 18:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other songs with the title "Fireflies"

There are several other songs with the title "Fireflies" mentioned in Wikipedia, though none of the others have their own individual article.

From Firefly (disambiguation)#Songs:

"Fireflies", a song by Fleetwood Mac on their 1980 album Live
"Fireflies", a song by JJ Grey & MOFRO on their 2004 album Lochloosa
"Fireflies", a song by Patti Smith from her 1996 album Gone Again
"Fireflies", a song by Rhett Miller on his 2006 The Believer album
"Fireflies" (song), a song by Owl City from the 2009 album Ocean Eyes

Since the other songs don't have their own articles, we can assume this song (by Owl City) is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC (at least for now), but we should at least have a link to the others so people can find them. I had placed this hatnote earlier but it was removed:

I am going to restore this hatnote now. If anyone objects again, could you please discuss here first with your rationale? Thanks! Facts707 (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the above were released as singles were they? If every single song from every single album was linked up, everything would be a bit confusing. I'm against this. Zylo1994 (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider contacting WP:WikiProject Disambiguation about this, but for now I have amended the hatnote. Anemone Projectors 18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a concern that readers will somehow reach this page while looking for one of the other songs? How? The answers there may help determine the next steps here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody would stumble accross this page looking for another Fireflies song. If it's that much of a problem (which I don't think it is) then why not chage the article to "Fireflies (Owl City song)" ? Zylo1994 (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Fireflies (song)" is ambiguous. However, there is presently no need to be overly precise with the title as it is the only song with that title. But until such time as there are other articles (or even redirects) for songs with that name, the ambiguity is resolved by including a hatnote. It may be worth noting that the Fleetwood Mac song was released as a single and charted. older ≠ wiser 20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC) PS From the first edit to the page on 07 March 2008 until 11 October 2009 Fireflies (song) was a redirect to Patti Smith Gone Again. older ≠ wiser 21:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. The title "Fireflies" is ambiguous, and there are multiple songs that might have that title. If "Fireflies (song)" is ambiguous (and really it's only ambiguous among readers who are familiar with Wikipedia music disambiguation conventions), then the solution is not the hatnote, but to use an unambiguous disambiguator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but if there is only one article (or redirect) with a title, adding a more precise disambiguating phrase is usually discouraged. I'd support moving Fireflies (song) to Fireflies (Owl City song) if there were other articles (or redirects) with the title. In the absence of such other articles or redirects, we can only assume that the Owl City song is the primary topic; however, a hatnote is the correct approach to address the residual ambiguity. older ≠ wiser 12:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we disagree on the concept of "residual ambiguity". :-) The Owl City song is not the primary topic -- the primary topic is Fireflies, so the Owl City song gets a disambiguator to distinguish it from that. I'm of the opinion that if an article with a disambiguator still has ambiguity, then it needs a better disambiguator, but that's up to the article-theme topic (music, in this case). And, in this case, I think that this article can remain at "Fireflies (song)" with no hatnote, because people looking for the other songs won't end up here -- they'll end up at the "Firefly" disambiguation page and then at the correct artist or album article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was sloppy in referring to the Owl City song as a primary topic. I think a hatnote is still appropriate if there is no additional disambiguation. The Search box helpfully pre-populates with titles as you type, so it is not at all unlikely that a person looking for one of the other songs by that name could arrive at the article about the Owl City song. older ≠ wiser

See also In America, In America (Charlie Daniels song), In America (song). If there's an ambiguity problem, I'd move this article to Fireflies (Owl City song) and redirect Fireflies (song) to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In America (Charlie Daniels song) does not follow naming conventions of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) where "song" is the recommended disambiguation phrase unless further disambiguation is required. If there is ambiguity between the Charlie Daniels song and the Creed song and no obvious primacy between them, then there should be an article or redirect at In America (Creed song) and In America (song) should redirect back to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're saying there's ambiguity, or at least residual ambiguity, then it does follow the naming conventions, because further disambiguation is required. That (residual) ambiguity is there regardless of the existence of other redirects, as long as there are other ambiguous topics, otherwise we wouldn't be considering solutions for it. (Side note: once you have a disambiguator, there is no longer any question of primacy as far as the current guidelines are concerned. At this point, you just need an unambiguous disambiguator. Being primary just means that you are the base name article or the target of the base name redirect.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as article titles go, there is no ambiguity and no need to add a disambiguating phrase. As for "primacy" of a disambiguated topic, this has come up before and there is precedent as in Independence Day (film) and Independence Day (1983 film). A number of editors, some disambiguation project regulars, commented on the primacy of the 1996 film. Personally, I think that was a flawed decision, but the precedent is there. Although curiously, compare Avatar (film) and Titanic (film) for two other approaches where one film is overwhelmingly more well known. There is a difference between ambiguous article titles which require disambiguating phrases because of the limitations wikimedia and the potential for ambiguity with non-article topics. older ≠ wiser 03:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as article titles go" wasn't my point. Either there's ambiguity or there's not. If the disambiguator leaves "residual ambiguity", then it's an incomplete disambiguation. I had no issue with (song) or (film) existing alongside (Creed song) or (1983 film), nor do I think there's an issue with moving them from (song) or (film) -- each way can work as far as disambiguation is concerned. If the predictive search capability is now causing an issue, the fix is to move the (song) or (film) instances to unambiguous titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as WP:DAB is a guideline relating to article titles, it is concerned with how to differentiate article titles that might otherwise share the same title. It also addresses other forms of ambiguity which do not strictly concern the titles of actual articles (or possible even potential articles). I've already said I'd support moving this article provided there were other articles or at least redirects for topics that were ambiguous. But in the absence of such redirects, I think it is perfectly appropriate to address residual ambiguity through a hatnote. older ≠ wiser 03:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm countering that the existence of other redirects is irrelevant; either there's still ambiguity with the (song) title or there's not, and if there's still ambiguity, then the title is an incomplete disambiguator and the article should be moved to an unambiguous title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that is not supported by current naming conventions. That is, the need for disambiguation of an article title is determined by the existence of other articles with that title (or a redirect, allowing that the redirect represents the possibility for an article at a particular title). older ≠ wiser 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just go with the hatnote. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, policy says the least precise disambiguator possible should be used, see WP:PRECISION. A hatnote would suffice for people looking for any other page. --JD554 (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the disagreement in policy. WP:NAMB says the hatnote isn't needed (since the title is disambiguated). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMB is an editing guideline, WP:PRECISION is policy. A hatnote would still be useful in this situation and therefore WP:IAR would come in to play. --JD554 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if we just toss the guidelines and policies into a ring and see who'd win. I saw this as more a possible starting point for bring them into accord, since they are trying to accomplish the same thing but disconnecting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could this article be moved to Fireflies (Owl City song) and then Fireflies (song) turned into a redirect to Firefly (disambiguation)#Songs as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}? That may meet both WP:PRECISION (since both titles will then exist) and WP:NAMB (no hatnote would be needed) and WP:D (an unambiguous disambiguator is used). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus overrides policy. Come up with a resolution that all can agree upon, even if you have to WP:IGNORE policy. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I just proposed. Is your response supposed to indicate agreement or disagreement with that resolution? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of song

Just a suggestions, it would be great if the interpretation of the song was also available on wiki. Anybody support this idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.218.81 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goldwave

I was reading page on the page for the software program Goldwave and it says: Adam Young (aka Owl City) used GoldWave to record all his vocals on his debut album "Ocean Eyes".[3] Thought it might be nice to include this information. 74.67.126.125 (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fireflies (Owl City song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks tool shows around 10 broken links. Please take care of this in order that I can carry out the review. C 679 07:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing review, fails criteria 2 (referencing). C 679 07:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fireflies (Owl City song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100514110225/http://www.livedaily.com:80/news/relient-k-tickets-and-tour-dates-livedaily-interview-matt-thiessen-of-relient-k-22094.html to http://www.livedaily.com/news/relient-k-tickets-and-tour-dates-livedaily-interview-matt-thiessen-of-relient-k-22094.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of music considered the worst

It's strange that this song appears there, yet in this article is given only positive recognition. Equinox (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fireflies (Owl City song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fireflies (Owl City song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-singles-2009.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://hitlisterne.dk/yearlist.asp?list=download%2050
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110121160735/http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=73 to http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=73

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fireflies (Owl City song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative rock?

I really don't see why this song is classified as alt-rock. I read the source, and it only mentions the genre of alternative rock once, and it's in the title. And also, the article doesn't explain why the song is alt-rock, it's just a list of songs they believe are alt-rock. JJPMaster (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone at Buzzfeed put it on a list of alt rock songs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]